AG -v- Michel [2011] JRC 012 (17 January 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] JRC 012
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Trial / Application for Recusal
More details
- Posture
- Trial / Application for Recusal
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
There is no reasonable suspicion of bias as the actions of the former Attorney-General are not certain to be questioned or relevant at trial; therefore, the judge must not recuse himself.
Court disposition
application for recusal declined
Orders
- Judge declines to recuse himself and will continue to sit in the trial.
02
Material facts
Parties
Defendant
Defendant Counsel: Mr Preston03
Procedural history
Posture
Trial / Application for Recusal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the judge should recuse himself due to potential bias
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The conduct of the former Attorney-General might be called into question during the trial, potentially raising issues of bias.
- Respondent
- There is no certainty that the actions of the former Attorney-General will be questioned or that he will be a witness at the trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Esteem Settlement and No 52 Trust [2001] JLR 169
A judge has a duty not to recuse himself unless a properly informed and reasonable man would consider there is a reasonable suspicion of bias.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
There is no reasonable suspicion of bias as the actions of the former Attorney-General are not certain to be questioned or relevant at trial; therefore, the judge must not recuse himself.
Obiter and limits
- If Defence counsel had been able to say that the actions of the former Attorney-General would be called into question then recusal would likely have been appropriate.
Court disposition
application for recusal declined
- Judge declines to recuse himself and will continue to sit in the trial.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. I have been asked to consider recusing myself as the Judge in this trial. Counsel for the defendant has helpfully placed before me the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Esteem Settlement and the Number 52 Trust and I have considered carefully the passages cited by Vaughan JA in particular at paragraph 21 et seq. It seems clear from that passage that a judge has a duty not to recuse himself unless he thinks that a properly informed and reasonable man would consider that there was a reasonable suspicion that the judge might be biased against the defendant.
2. The only matter that has given me some concern in the submissions of counsel is the possibility that the conduct of the former Attorney-General might be called into question during the course of this trial. Mr Preston has very candidly told me that he cannot say that the actions of the former Attorney-General will be questioned, nor that he will be a witness at the trial. I must say from my reading of the papers that it is difficult to see how an argument related to those matters could assist the defendant or be relevant at the trial. If Defence counsel had been able to say that the actions of the former Attorney-General would be called into question then I should very likely have recused myself.
3. As things stand it seems to me that I have a duty to sit and I accordingly decline to recuse myself. Authorities The Esteem Settlement and No 52 Trust [2001] JLR 169 . Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.